Reasons for medication-free childbirth

[Anonymous]

to PP (9:50) -- there really is no sense in trying any longer to discuss the reasons for your decision. i know that's what the OP asked, and that's what you offered. the naysayers have taken over the thread. it's simply degenerated to namecalling (pompous, self-righteous, etc... you even appear to be called a flat out liar). women who are comfortable with their decision not to go natural really don't care, i don't think, about why anyone chose differently. my good friends, the vast majority of whom went medicated, have never asked me why i did things differently. i've never judged them; they've never judged me. i surround myself though with confident, self-assured women. you won't find those types of women on this thread anymore.

i congratulate you on your efforts to correct how those on this thread (particularly the last 2 pages) have misconstrued what you've said and attacked you relentlessly. but i suggest you just let them have the last word. they have a greater stake in "being right" than you do because they appear more insecure. let 'em have their rant, i say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i just wanted to remind everyone the purpose of the thread. the OP asked why natural birth mamas chose that route. if you didn't choose that route (which describes about 1/2 of these posters) go start another thread as to why you dislike natural birthers.

Sorry, but welcome to DCUM. This is what happens with threads like this one...everybody chimes in. If you really only wanted to hear from natural birth moms, you shouldn't have posted on this site.

[Anonymous]

Heaven help us......please just read what I wrote. I did not say that "50% of all births have all these procedures." I did not say that "anything less than natural is harmful for baby." I DIDN'T SAY THOSE THINGS. I said that everything carries potential risks, some hospitals have high rates of interventions, and for me personally I wanted to avoid them.

However, just for kicks and giggles, shall we come up with some examples that prove the extent to which babies have at least one of those procedures? Since you claim to be a L&D nurse, you should know about how many vaginal births wind up with baby getting a delee down it's throat? What is your guess? About what percentage of cesarean births wind up with the delee? How many babies wind up with a sugar-coated pacifier at some point in their stay? Just general percentages here. Just tally them up and let me know what you personally have witnessed, in general. 10%? 20%? And before you go on about how harmless these things are, I will say that for me personally, I didn't want those things to happen to my baby - regardless of how harmless you personally might think they are.

Anonymous wrote:fanatical natural birth poster--you are so making this up to support your point. I've been a L&D nurse for 10 years in the great Baltimore/DC area and would say without a doubt that these procedures/interventions that you speak of are by no means part of 50% of all deliveries. Most are QUITE rare. You are quoting facts that simply aren't true in order to support your agenda.

I myself had a natural birth and have supported many, many women who labored naturally but I can't the arrogance of the extreme segments of the natural birth community who preach that anything less than natural is harmful to baby, mother, bonding etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:53 hours. Guarantee I would have had any number of interventions such as drugs, episiotomy, forceps, surgery, separation of my baby after delivery....any number of things which could have physically harmed me or my baby.

Great for you that it turned out well. But many, many, many women have interventions and have healthy babies.

Ugh. It's like beating one's head against a brick wall.

You're right, it is precisely like beating one's head against a brick wall.

I didn't say that those things WOULD have harmed us; merely that they COULD have. Each of those things have risks - risks that you and others may not worry about or risks that you think are inconsequential or risks that you feel are worth taking because there are some benefits you find more appealing - but certainly there are risks. So, for ME I was happy to avoid them since I didn't need those interventions. And yes, babies are affected far far more in "typical" hospital births than in the typical out-of-hospital birth. Go ahead, go ahead and ask your co-workers and friends and neighbors about all their NICU stays, the babies who mysteriously wouldn't breastfeed, the babies who needed to be taken for aggressive deep suctioning, babies who picked up random infections, babies with scars from their forceps, hematomas from the vacuum that pulled them out, babies who started their lives with high doses of broad-spectrum antibiotics, sugar coated pacifiers in their mouths, etc. etc. . Yes, at the end of the day (or week or month), everyone winds up "healthy" - but for me personally, I was looking for MORE than "healthy".

You have a really extreme notion of a routine hospital birth. You aren't doing much to help your case, you just sound a little hysterical.

I wonder how much time you have actually spent on a L&D floor? It's easy to blow off what I'm saying as "hysterical" when you haven't actually witnessed it. I've worked (off and on) on L&D for seven years. At times, I've seen up to 50% of every baby born, have one of the procedures/interventions I mentioned above. It is no secret that routine hospital birth does indeed lead to several potential consequences for the baby, partly due to routine protocols, and partly due to the effect of certain medications/procedures during labor. Again, almost all of these babies wind up with a clean bill of health and sent home with mom and dad (although certainly some do not). Regardless, it was not what I wanted for my babies and that was why I chose my out-of-hospital, natural childbirths - just to answer OP's question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If you could care less, it wouldn't be so infuriating.

And you wouldn't keep posting trying about how natural birth is better...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say that those things WOULD have harmed us; merely that they COULD have. Each of those things have risks - risks that you and others may not worry about or risks that you think are inconsequential or risks that you feel are worth taking because there are some benefits you find more appealing - but certainly there are risks. So, for ME I was happy to avoid them since I didn't need those interventions. And yes, babies are affected far far more in "typical" hospital births than in the typical out-of-hospital birth. Go ahead, go ahead and ask your co-workers and friends and neighbors about all their NICU stays, the babies who mysteriously wouldn't breastfeed, the babies who needed to be taken for aggressive deep suctioning, babies who picked up random infections, babies with scars from their forceps, hematomas from the vacuum that pulled them out, babies who started their lives with high doses of broad-spectrum antibiotics, sugar coated pacifiers in their mouths, etc. etc. . Yes, at the end of the day (or week or month), everyone winds up "healthy" - but for me personally, I was looking for MORE than "healthy".

Ummm...do you think that there are only risks with births where there are "interventions"? Listen, I lived in Europe for a few years and had my second child there. Natural labor there is much more popular, and so there are more stats available and more "anecdotal" information. There are risks involved with natural labor, especially a home birth. And what you forget is that natural labor can sometimes lead to interventions and those very procedures you are denouncing have saved lives.

I had an epidural and you know what? I breast fed my baby (both times) right away. Both scored wonderfully (9/10 on APGAR). No support at all needed for them...alert and perfect. Neither were carted away for cleaning, etc. I could get up within the hour both times after my epidural and left the hospital after 12 hours after the birth of my second.

I honestly don't see how natural labor would have made things go better.

Of course, you will be quick to belittle my experience by saying that it is just *one* example. But you have no qualms about only pointing out the advantages of homebirth and talking about your one experience by making it sound like all natural labors go that way. That isn't any truer than me saying that all labors with epidurals turn out my way.

I would just love for people to give it a rest and acknowledge that there are different ways of going about things. Of course some will think that their way is the best way b/c they are Type A individuals who are uber-competitive and view childbirth as another thing for them to "win" and be "best" at.

I honestly don't know how much more I could have qualified my comments. I never said that all babies born with epidurals have problems - not even close. I merely said that FOR ME, I PERSONALLY did not want to take those risks. The way I PERSONALLY chose to avoid those risks was to avoid the hospitals and avoid their protocols.

It is absolutely infuriating that so many people seem to have huge mental blocks about this. We COULD NOT CARE LESS how anyone else chooses to birth. Every woman has to decide for herself what is best for her and her family. OP wanted to know the various reasons women choose natural birth, and for ME PERSONALLY it was to avoid the risks that come with unnecessary medications or interventions. Had I actually needed any medical interventions, I would have been the first to step up and accept them.

If you could care less, it wouldn't be so infuriating.

The infuriating part is being call a liar, having people purposefully misquote me, tell me my experiences are not valid, and continually misconstrue what I'm trying to say. Troll, troll, troll......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:to PP (9:50) -- there really is no sense in trying any longer to discuss the reasons for your decision. i know that's what the OP asked, and that's what you offered. the naysayers have taken over the thread. it's simply degenerated to namecalling (pompous, self-righteous, etc... you even appear to be called a flat out liar). women who are comfortable with their decision not to go natural really don't care, i don't think, about why anyone chose differently. my good friends, the vast majority of whom went medicated, have never asked me why i did things differently. i've never judged them; they've never judged me. i surround myself though with confident, self-assured women. you won't find those types of women on this thread anymore.

i congratulate you on your efforts to correct how those on this thread (particularly the last 2 pages) have misconstrued what you've said and attacked you relentlessly. but i suggest you just let them have the last word. they have a greater stake in "being right" than you do because they appear more insecure. let 'em have their rant, i say.

Thanks, you are right. By the way, I'm a relatively new poster on this thread.....I think everyone else gave up long ago.

[Anonymous]

"I didn't say that those things WOULD have harmed us; merely that they COULD have. Each of those things have risks - risks that you and others may not worry about or risks that you think are inconsequential or risks that you feel are worth taking because there are some benefits you find more appealing - but certainly there are risks. So, for ME I was happy to avoid them since I didn't need those interventions. And yes, babies are affected far far more in "typical" hospital births than in the typical out-of-hospital birth. Go ahead, go ahead and ask your co-workers and friends and neighbors about all their NICU stays, the babies who mysteriously wouldn't breastfeed, the babies who needed to be taken for aggressive deep suctioning, babies who picked up random infections, babies with scars from their forceps, hematomas from the vacuum that pulled them out, babies who started their lives with high doses of broad-spectrum antibiotics, sugar coated pacifiers in their mouths, etc. etc. . Yes, at the end of the day (or week or month), everyone winds up "healthy" - but for me personally, I was looking for MORE than "healthy".

Honestly, I don't know any child who suffered any of the things you just described. And only a handful of my friends/colleagues had home births. And ironically, the person who had the hardest time with her breastfeeding baby had a natural birth.

Soo....not quite sure where you are from or who your friends and colleagues are, but this litany of horrors that you speak about just didn't happen to anybody I know (and I know a LOT of women in this area who have given birth).

I really can't see how some posters think you are playing nice and the rest of us, who are calling you on your extremes, are the bad guys. It isn't like we have listed out the extreme things that can go wrong with a home birth (like...death of mom or baby). But according to you, there aren't any risks associated with a out-of-hospital birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The infuriating part is being call a liar, having people purposefully misquote me, tell me my experiences are not valid, and continually misconstrue what I'm trying to say. Troll, troll, troll......

No kidding. I'm sure there are ladies on the other side who feel the same way.

I read all your posts and agree with you. I have chosen to give birth without medication in a birth center not only because I think that it is what is best for me and my baby but also because I think that it is what is best in general for moms and babies who have had a low risk easy pregnancy. If I had had a really hard time with pregnancy, if I had medical issues, if I was of AMA, if I had had problems with previous deliveries, I might be inclined to make different choices for this pregnancy, but that would absolutely not change my conviction that drug free vag birth is what's best for low risk pregnancies.

If other women think that something else is better for their particular situation, or better for all situations, that's FINE. It doesn't offend me personally if you want every intervention known to man, even though that's not how I would ever do it given a choice to do otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"I didn't say that those things WOULD have harmed us; merely that they COULD have. Each of those things have risks - risks that you and others may not worry about or risks that you think are inconsequential or risks that you feel are worth taking because there are some benefits you find more appealing - but certainly there are risks. So, for ME I was happy to avoid them since I didn't need those interventions. And yes, babies are affected far far more in "typical" hospital births than in the typical out-of-hospital birth. Go ahead, go ahead and ask your co-workers and friends and neighbors about all their NICU stays, the babies who mysteriously wouldn't breastfeed, the babies who needed to be taken for aggressive deep suctioning, babies who picked up random infections, babies with scars from their forceps, hematomas from the vacuum that pulled them out, babies who started their lives with high doses of broad-spectrum antibiotics, sugar coated pacifiers in their mouths, etc. etc. . Yes, at the end of the day (or week or month), everyone winds up "healthy" - but for me personally, I was looking for MORE than "healthy".

Honestly, I don't know any child who suffered any of the things you just described. And only a handful of my friends/colleagues had home births. And ironically, the person who had the hardest time with her breastfeeding baby had a natural birth.

Soo....not quite sure where you are from or who your friends and colleagues are, but this litany of horrors that you speak about just didn't happen to anybody I know (and I know a LOT of women in this area who have given birth).

I really can't see how some posters think you are playing nice and the rest of us, who are calling you on your extremes, are the bad guys. It isn't like we have listed out the extreme things that can go wrong with a home birth (like...death of mom or baby). But according to you, there aren't any risks associated with a out-of-hospital birth.

This just confirms to me that most parents do not really know what happens to their babies in the hospital. For example, every single baby born by cesarean, and every single baby born with meconium, gets deep suctioning - at least at the hospitals where I have worked. If you have friends whose babies were born by cesarean in DC, their baby received this.

Also, not that this thread is about home vs. hospital birth (as if we need to open up that can of worms...) but honestly, I would be fascinated to see any well-documented data you can find that demonstrates that there is a higher risk of fetal or maternal death as a result of planned home birth where a professional maternity care provider is present.

[Anonymous]

This thread is so crazy! I don't even know why I'm posting - I'm bored at home waiting for a contractor to come take a look at our house and DH is playing with our toddler so I just read through this. Wow.

I am an incredibly active, healthy person. I wanted a natural childbirth and tried to prepare for it as best I could. I also strongly wanted a hospital birth, though I totally understand why some people wouldn't. Anyway, I'm a yoga devotee and did prenatal yoga, took birthing classes with DH, read a ton of books, etc.

I ended up not progressing once my water broke, the pain was actually bearable (awful, but bearable) - but I couldn't relax - I was freezing, and I was in a ball so not the active labor I had envisioned. Anyway, I got the epidural, 15 minutes later I was fully dilated, and after less than 30 minutes of pushing (of which I was in a squatting position, could feel EVERYTHING in terms of pressure) pushed my healthy baby girl out!

I have never looked back. It was a great birth experience, breast feeding came easily and we did it for a year, and I recovered really easily - back to running and yoga in no time! Okay, more walking than running these days but still.

Anyway, I think I might have been able to go natural if I had had a doula, but oh well. I didn't. I just wanted it to be me and DH.

I admire women who did the natural childbirth route, but I don't think my experience was any less amazing, nor does DH, and we have a healthy kid and healthy mom, so I can't complain. I would never talk someone out of trying to do a natural birth. Go for it - inform yourself, and do what feels right. But I certainly don't think I put my baby or me at unnecessary risk nor do I think I had less of an experience. Just do what feels comfortable to you, be open to things changing, and do the best you can with the situation you are in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you could care less, it wouldn't be so infuriating.

And you wouldn't keep posting trying about how natural birth is better...

Obviously, you have me confused with another poster. Get your facts straight before you respond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Heaven help us......please just read what I wrote.

We did read what you wrote and we think you are off the deep end. If you are going to shout at us about this stuff, Miss Oh-So-Fond-of-All-Caps, what do you expect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:to PP (9:50) -- there really is no sense in trying any longer to discuss the reasons for your decision. i know that's what the OP asked, and that's what you offered. the naysayers have taken over the thread. it's simply degenerated to namecalling (pompous, self-righteous, etc... you even appear to be called a flat out liar). women who are comfortable with their decision not to go natural really don't care, i don't think, about why anyone chose differently. my good friends, the vast majority of whom went medicated, have never asked me why i did things differently. i've never judged them; they've never judged me. i surround myself though with confident, self-assured women. you won't find those types of women on this thread anymore.

Classic. We couldn't possibly just disagree with her. We must be "naysayers" and insecure. You know it has gotten really lame when someone resorts to the insecurity thing to dismiss someone who disagrees with them.

Confident, self assured woman, my ass. Sore loser is more likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, not that this thread is about home vs. hospital birth (as if we need to open up that can of worms...) but honestly, I would be fascinated to see any well-documented data you can find that demonstrates that there is a higher risk of fetal or maternal death as a result of planned home birth where a professional maternity care provider is present.

Here you go, hot off the presses:

J Perinatol. 2010 Feb 25. [Epub ahead of print]
Infant outcomes of certified nurse midwife attended home births: United States 2000 to 2004.

Malloy MH.

Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.

Objective:Home births attended by certified nurse midwives (CNMs) make up an extremely small proportion of births in the United States (<1.0%) and are not supported by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG). The primary objective of this analysis was to examine the safety of certified nurse midwife attended home deliveries compared with certified nurse midwife in-hospital deliveries in the United States as measured by the risk of adverse infant outcomes among women with term, singleton, vaginal deliveries.Study Design:United States linked birth and infant death files for the years 2000 to 2004 were used for the analysis. Adverse neonatal outcomes including death were determined by place of birth and attendant type for in-hospital certified nurse midwife, in-hospital 'other' midwife, home certified nurse midwife, home 'other' midwife, and free-standing birth center certified nurse midwife deliveries.Result:For the 5-year period there were 1 237 129 in-hospital certified nurse midwife attended births; 17 389 in-hospital 'other' midwife attended births; 13 529 home certified nurse midwife attended births; 42 375 home 'other' midwife attended births; and 25 319 birthing center certified nurse midwife attended births. The neonatal mortality rate per 1000 live births for each of these categories was, respectively, 0.5 (deaths=614), 0.4 (deaths=7), 1.0 (deaths=14), 1.8 (deaths=75), and 0.6 (deaths=16). The adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for neonatal mortality for home certified nurse midwife attended deliveries vs in-hospital certified nurse midwife attended deliveries was 2.02 (1.18, 3.45).Conclusioneliveries at home attended by CNMs and 'other midwives' were associated with higher risks for mortality than deliveries in-hospital by CNMs. Journal of Perinatology advance online publication, 25 February 2010; doi:10.1038/jp.2010.12.

[Anonymous]

I guess it all comes down to an individual's perception of risk and their personal aversion to it. I don't think the majority of posters here are saying that an epidural delivery or natural delivery is risk free. No birth is without risk. We can't even drive to the grocery store without assuming some level of risk.

With all of that said, some of us would rather not assume the risks that go along with an epidural. We all know there are risks. Even if I was confused about it, there was a very long waiver I had to sign when being admitted to the hospital in labor.

We all decide our own comfort level. I am not going to tell anyone they are putting their baby in danger when they get into a car or get an epidural. It is not my job to tell everyone what could happen. We all know what could happen and hope that we are on the better side of statistics.